Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Leon v. Ocwen Loan Servicing

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

February 15, 2017



          Leo T. Sorokin United States District Judge.

         For the reasons that follow, the Court ALLOWS Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint.

         I. BACKGROUND

         On February 25, 2016, Plaintiff Januris Hernandez De Leon, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint against Defendant Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC. Plaintiff alleged discrimination and violations under various state and federal statutes. On August 1, 2016, the Court granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 8(a) and Rule 12(b)(6) Doc. 24 at 3. Specifically, the Court determined that the allegations of the Complaint were conclusory. See id. The Court permitted Plaintiff twenty-one days to file an amended complaint to cure the pleading deficiencies identified by the Court. Id. at 3-4.

         On August 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed a timely Amended Complaint. Doc. 26. Defendant again moved to dismiss. Doc. 27. As explained in more detail in the Court's opinion, the Court directed Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint to cure pleading deficiencies identified by the Court in part because the Amended Complaint failed to set forth specific factual allegations to support her claims. See Doc. 29 at 3, 6. The Court denied the motion to dismiss as moot in light of its ruling and granted Plaintiff twenty-one days to file a Second Amended Complaint. Id.

         Plaintiff filed a timely Second Amended Complaint on September 21, 2016. Defendant again filed a Motion to Dismiss the case on October 5, 2016. Doc. 35. For the next two months, Plaintiff neither responded to Defendant's Motion nor requested an extension of time. Doc. 38 at I. On December 6, 2016, the Court ordered Plaintiff to respond by December 28, 2016 and warned that this case will be dismissed if Plaintiff fails to do so. Id. at 2. On January 3, 2017, five days after the Court-imposed filing deadline, Plaintiff filed a response. Notwithstanding the late response and the Court's “inherent power to dismiss case[s] sua sponte for failure to prosecute, ” Dietz v. Bouldin, 136 S.Ct. 1885, 1892 (2016) (citing, inter alia, Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 631-32 (1962)), the Court considers the merits of the parties' arguments.


         The Second Amended Complaint suffers from the same pleading deficiencies that Court previously identified and fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

         As the Court explained, Rule (8)(a) demands “more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Plaintiff's allegations must include “more than labels and conclusions.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).

         To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. There must be enough factual content to allow the court to “draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. Meeting this standard is important because a pleading must provide a defendant with “fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Silverstrand Invs. v. AMAG Pharm., Inc., 707 F.3d 95, 101 (1st Cir. 2013) (quoting Ocasio-Hernandez v. Fortuno-Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2011)) (alteration in original).

         A. Count I

         Count I alleges a claim unlawful discrimination. Doc. 34 at 2. Plaintiff asserts that Citibank refused a loan modification “since the plaintiff is a minority home owner” but has failed to allege any specific facts that suggest that the refusal was motivated by a discriminatory bias. Id. Plaintiff's claims in the Opposition to Defendant's Motion are similarly vague and speculative. Plaintiff asserts that “Defendant has treated the plaintiff differently” and that “this fact by itself is evidence of discrimination.” Doc. 40 at 2. But Plaintiff has not provided any basis for concluding that Citibank treated her differently than others with similar financial records. Plaintiff has also not made any assertions regarding Defendant's specific actions or communications that demonstrate a discriminatory animus. Accordingly, Count I of the Second Amended Complaint fails to cure the pleading deficiencies previously explained by the Court. Doc. 29 at 3-4. Thus, it is dismissed.

         Count I also alleges a claim under the Home Affordable Mortgage Program (“HAMP”). Doc. 34 at 2-3. As the Court previously noted, HAMP does not provide a private right of action; Plaintiff cannot bring a claim solely based on the ground that Defendant violated HAMP. See, e.g., Molina v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, 635 F. App'x 618, 624-626 (11th Cir. 2015). Instead, Plaintiff may use the HAMP guidelines as the basis for a state law claim, such as a claim for breach of contract or for violation of the Massachusetts consumer protection statute, Chapter 93A of the Massachusetts General Laws. See, e.g., Hannigan v. Bank of Amer., N.A., 48 F.Supp.3d 135, 142-43 (D. Mass. 2014); Stagikas v. Saxon Mortg. Servs., Inc., 795 F.Supp.2d 129, 135-37 (D. Mass. 2011); Morris v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, 775 F.Supp.2d 255, 259 (D. Mass. 2011). Plaintiff has neither alleged a separate state law cause of action nor pled sufficient factual allegations to support such a claim.

         B. ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.